Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Granville57]

Yes, I apologise

No need. It was visions of Polish that I had dancing in my head.

 

[thehog]

No need. It was visions of Polish that I had dancing in my head.

You need to stop thinking about him. He's gone

 

[Granville57]

You need to stop thinking about him. He's gone

You mean...you...

Tell me you didn't.

 

[thehog]

You mean...you...

Tell me you didn't.

A good friend of mine once said...

What really sends things off the rails is when some folks jump in to defend the honor of whatever it is they seem to feel has been violated, and do so with blatantly wrong assertions, uninformed analysis, and the misguided assumption that reasonable debate won't be accepted.

A calm exchange of ideas would do just fine on its own. Maintaining a healthy sense of humor alongside reasoned scientific inquiry would only add to this. But the screeching of outrage at the mere suggestion that there may be more to this than initially meets the eye, is what tends to turn things toxic.

It was a weird occurrence.

It sparked some curiosity and, of course, some humor.

But then "the other side" became deeply serious...and darkness fell upon the land.

And then the blame shifts to those who had the audacity to even think about discussing such things in the first place.

It's a funny cycle that these things tend to go through.
(Not sure if pun was intended or not.)

This post needs to be stickyed for all us. It's a good guide.

Cheers to you.

 

[Granville57]

A good friend of mine once said...

This post needs to be stickyed for all us. It's a good guide.

Cheers to you.

Good post hog.


But you forgot the link!

 

[D-Queued]

As expected there is a big fight over discovery. Some of it is kinda funny, like Lance claiming Attorney-Client privilege for evidence related to Stapleton....even though he was not a licensed attorney. Or that terms like Doping and Thomas Weisel are too broad.

They claim CSE is not aware of any actions by CSE to discourage or deter any individual from talking about doping.....guess they forgot that Stapleton-Frankie discussion

Also interesting they have some specific discussions they want info on. A discussion with A Coca-Cola Representative, another with the head of Discovery Channel

There are some very pointed questions about who in the Government knew about doping......with a vague, obstructed, response from lance. In fact anything they don't want to respond to they claim it is "Vague"

I do like the "We replaced our sever in 2005 and have no emails from prior to 2005" excuse.

I could go on but if anyone is interested in 180 pages of obstruction here it is
http://www.scribd.com/doc/238755744/Discovery-Fight

Thanks RR.

Thanks also for digesting it.

I've invested enough time already in reading material about Lance, and am not interested in going through another 180 pages of predictable nonsense. Like you, I am confident that this will be deflated.

This is certainly true.

...

You can believe anything you like but have you or anyone else read or know of re-underwriters that are any way connected to the SCA action against LA? Go ahead and produce some links if you have them. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily - but I'd like to know who else besides SCA was on the hook for this.

A while back there was some media speculation that SCA shared some of the risk on the deal but I have not seen, or heard, any confirmation of it.

Yes, there were co-insurers and re-insurers.

Lance already settled with one of the co-insurers. Pretty sure you both recall that.

I am too lazy to look up the other insurance companies that were involved (at least one or two more). It was outlined in a much earlier post, likely in one of the preceding threads to this one.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Lance already settled with one of the co-insurers. Pretty sure you both recall that.

I think you may be referring to the Acceptance insurance case. That is actually a different case, they insured lance's Tour's prior to SCA. They paid out in 2001 but their contract was better then SCA's.

This is going to take a long time, but not for the reasons some think. The remedies for fraud like this are broad.

Some monkeys are not going to get any grapes.

 

[D-Queued]

I think you may be referring to the Acceptance insurance case. That is actually a different case, they insured lance's Tour's prior to SCA. They paid out in 2001 but their contract was better then SCA's.

This is going to take a long time, but not for the reasons some think. The remedies for fraud like this are broad.

Some monkeys are not going to get any grapes.

Thanks for the correction.

The original SCA case Claimants exhibits included citation of contracts with Chubb and Lloyd's, as well as references to Swiss Re, AIG and Federal Insurance Company.

Both Lloyd's and Chubb paid when SCA was originally withholding payment.



From: ADDENDUM TO LETTER AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 10, 2000

"... This also confirms that policies insuring the payment of such bonuses from SCA Promotions, Lloyd's of London and Chubb Insurance Group are being purchased or have been purchased..."


From: 01/06/2001 email to Frank Lorenzo of Swiss Re from Bob Hamman of SCA

Subject: Tour de France

"Our agreement is:

Level Bonus Goal
1 1,500,000 Win 2001 & 2002
2 3,000,000 Win 2001,2002 & 2003
3 5,000,000 Win 2001,2002,2003 & 2004

Premium for 100% - $320,000 SwissRe participation 57.89% - 5,000,000 of 9,000,000

How about doing levels 1 & 2 only at a rate of $240,000 with Swiss Re taking 4,350,000/4,500,000."

Reply email:

"If you can get $275,000 for Levels 1 and 2, I can accommodate."

AIG is also copied on further correspondence related to Swiss Re.

From: 01/12/2001 email from Bob to Frank

"As per our agreement of 1/10 Swiss_Re will accept 97.5% of levels 1&2 PIL will take 2.5%. AIG will issue.

Mark-this is an incentive case. Our undewrstanding (sic) is that AIG will issue without any risk retention."

----

And now for the smoking gun email

Sent: mercredi, 11. aout 2004 17:01
To: Rumpf Alain - UCI
Cc: Varin Christian - UCI
Subject: Lance Armstrong

"Good morning gentlemen, we were given your contact information by Bill Stapletons office. If you don't mind we need your assistance with regards to this years Tour de France win. We placed a large incentive bonus for Tailwind with respects to a 6th Tour win by Lance Armstrong. Due to the size of the bonus this year there are 3 insurance companies involved in the placement of this coverage. As you are probably well aware there has been alot of negetative (sic) information circulating about the use of drugs by the US Postal Team, specifically Lance. We have tried to reassure them that Lance was clean and that he would not h ave been awarded the win if there was any questions as to his us drugs. It would be helpful if we could provide them with written proof from the experts. It would be very helpful if you could provide us the procedures that must be followed for drug testing by UCI for events such as the Tour de France. Are the results of the tests available to the public? How are the offenders treated? Are there any exceptions to the rules? ..."


The response from the UCI was that he had been tested in 2004, and the results were negative. No further elaboration.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks for the correction.

The original SCA case Claimants exhibits included citation of contracts with Chubb and Lloyd's, as well as references to Swiss Re, AIG and Federal Insurance Company.

Good info Dave.

Funny that SCA started doing their due diligence a couple years after they signed the deal. Stapleton wrote a similar letter to Travis for the SCA case, Travis cleared him in the same manner. Passed all tests.

The guy they sent the email to, Alain Rumpf, is a good guy..... but he is Verburggen's buddy. Currently organizer of the soon to be dead Tour of Beijing. He is not going to say anything

 

[thehog]

Thanks for the correction.

The original SCA case Claimants exhibits included citation of contracts with Chubb and Lloyd's, as well as references to Swiss Re, AIG and Federal Insurance Company.

Both Lloyd's and Chubb paid when SCA was originally withholding payment.



From: ADDENDUM TO LETTER AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 10, 2000

"... This also confirms that policies insuring the payment of such bonuses from SCA Promotions, Lloyd's of London and Chubb Insurance Group are being purchased or have been purchased..."


From: 01/06/2001 email to Frank Lorenzo of Swiss Re from Bob Hamman of SCA

Subject: Tour de France

"Our agreement is:

Level Bonus Goal
1 1,500,000 Win 2001 & 2002
2 3,000,000 Win 2001,2002 & 2003
3 5,000,000 Win 2001,2002,2003 & 2004

Premium for 100% - $320,000 SwissRe participation 57.89% - 5,000,000 of 9,000,000

How about doing levels 1 & 2 only at a rate of $240,000 with Swiss Re taking 4,350,000/4,500,000."

Reply email:

"If you can get $275,000 for Levels 1 and 2, I can accommodate."

AIG is also copied on further correspondence related to Swiss Re.

From: 01/12/2001 email from Bob to Frank

"As per our agreement of 1/10 Swiss_Re will accept 97.5% of levels 1&2 PIL will take 2.5%. AIG will issue.

Mark-this is an incentive case. Our undewrstanding (sic) is that AIG will issue without any risk retention."

----

And now for the smoking gun email

That is very good information. The smoking gun email is not that smoking considering the lack of drug use clause. But don't disagree it is damming but it's just an email not part of a contract but by query.

What caught my eye more so was the lack of risk retention in the arrangement.

Mark-this is an incentive case. Our undewrstanding (sic) is that AIG will issue without any risk retention."

And AIG?! My god.

Who's money is this anyway?

I look forward to seeing the full disclose when it's all said and done.

Edit: Just re:read that email; is that from Bob? Is it he asking for no risk retention? You mean he strung up these deals with the underwriters sans due diligence? and requested no retention.

Interesting. Very interesting. Like I said, I'd like to see more. But from what I read, Bob took on an almighty risk and sold that to the underwriters.

Will wait for more as this is only partial information but SCA, really?

 

[Granville57]

I've invested enough time already in reading material about Lance, and am not interested in going through another 180 pages of predictable nonsense.

<Note to self: Bump this post when we arrive at page 1,070 of this thread.>

 

[D-Queued]

<Note to self: Bump this post when we arrive at page 1,070 of this thread.>

Qualify that statement:

I've invested enough time already in reading material about Lance, and am not interested in going through another 180 pages of predictable nonsense <add> beyond the thousands of pages yet to be posted on this forum.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

...

Edit: Just re:read that email; is that from Bob? Is it he asking for no risk retention? You mean he strung up these deals with the underwriters sans due diligence? and requested no retention.

Interesting. Very interesting. Like I said, I'd like to see more. But from what I read, Bob took on an almighty risk and sold that to the underwriters.

Will wait for more as this is only partial information but SCA, really?

Yes, that email was from Bob.

Not clear that he is asking for no retention, or simply stating that this is what AIG will do.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Yes, that email was from Bob.

Not clear that he is asking for no retention, or simply stating that this is what AIG will do.

Dave.

Agreed. It's hard to tell if it's just confirmation or a request. Risk rention these days is largely regulated since the toxic deals that AIG underwrote, this probably being one of them.

Still the point remains. Bob/SCA weren't doing themselves or anyone else favours with this deal. They really did sell the raw meat to the underwriters and appears he was trying to reassure them that he had done his homework when clearly he hadn't.

Interesting polemic to be honest. Whist easy to point fingers at Armstrong and so we should but I'm not sure SCA have been ripped off in the emotive manner that they claim to be...

Sticky mess and our tax dollars mixed in there somewhere.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Agreed. It's hard to tell if it's just confirmation or a request. Risk rention these days is largely regulated since the toxic deals that AIG underwrote, this probably being one of them.

Still the point remains. Bob/SCA weren't doing themselves or anyone else favours with this deal. They really did sell the raw meat to the underwriters and appears he was trying to reassure them that he had done his homework when clearly he hadn't.

Interest polemic to be honest. Whist easy to point fingers at Armstrong and so we should but I'm not sure SCA have been ripped off in the emotive manner that they claim to be...

Sticky mess and our tax dollars mixed in there somewhere.

Maybe you can explain how tax dollars could be involved since AIG was rescued in September of 2008.

Lance committed fraud and perjury in the SCA deal, so SCA was indeed ripped off unless, like BroDeal, you think they rated for the cheating and took the risk anyways. I think the email Dave produced kinda puts the kabosh on that line of thinking.

 

[thehog]

Maybe you can explain how tax dollars could be involved since AIG was rescued in September of 2008.

Lance committed fraud and perjury in the SCA deal, so SCA was indeed ripped off unless, like BroDeal, you think they rated for the cheating and took the risk anyways. I think the email Dave produced kinda puts the kabosh on that line of thinking.

Yes I hope AIG are saved out of this. Unfair for them to be done over in this manner I jest of course. Try lightening up just a little

What I do see is Bob shopping around and picking up a few underwriters which took on some of the risk in part. With Bob collecting his fees. But it was Bob's job to present the risk assessment and perform due diligence to those underwriters. From where I stand he just didn't do it and simply collected his fees. Maybe we'll find out what his fees were in the upcoming hearing?

Good on Bob for trying to get some of the money back but it was on his head to provide the risk management on this one. And he didn't do it. That's on him not anyone else.

I'm 50/50 on this. It's a tough one to slice down on either side. No wonder bob has been making emotional pleas to the public.

and AIG! sheesh!

 

[Merckx index]

Our agreement is:

Level Bonus Goal
1 1,500,000 Win 2001 & 2002
2 3,000,000 Win 2001,2002 & 2003
3 5,000,000 Win 2001,2002,2003 & 2004

I thought insurance companies were supposed to be experts at statistics. I don’t understand their reasoning here. I assume the bonus reflects their estimate of the probability or difficulty of achieving various levels. They award $1.5 million for winning in 2001 and 2002, or $750,000 per win. But if he wins again in 2003, he gets $3 million, which means $1.5 million for winning a third time. Then $5 million for winning four years in a row, which means $2 million for winning the fourth time.

IOW, they are betting that after 2002, each TDF victory is less likely than the year before. But that doesn’t make sense. A prior win should make a succeeding win more likely, because it establishes that you have what it takes to win. You’re betting on the basis of the information you have, and if the rider has managed to win once or twice in a row, that information says a third win and a fourth win are more likely, not less likely. It’s like flipping a coin, except that every time the coin comes up heads, it’s somewhat more likely to come up heads the next time.

Maybe they thought because LA was 27 when he won his first, that his form would be in decline by 2003, when he was 31? I guess I could see that, most multiple GT winners are finished in their early 30s. But as was discussed at the time, having been out of racing for a couple of years because of the cancer, and on a relatively light schedule that was focussed on peaking at the TDF, LA was poised to go on somewhat longer than his predecessors.

I won’t even comment on all the typos in the email, and don’t say “it’s only an email”. I would be ashamed to make that many mistakes on a post in an internet forum, let alone a business communication.

 

[MarkvW]

Agreed. It's hard to tell if it's just confirmation or a request. Risk rention these days is largely regulated since the toxic deals that AIG underwrote, this probably being one of them.

Still the point remains. Bob/SCA weren't doing themselves or anyone else favours with this deal. They really did sell the raw meat to the underwriters and appears he was trying to reassure them that he had done his homework when clearly he hadn't.

Interest polemic to be honest. Whist easy to point fingers at Armstrong and so we should but I'm not sure SCA have been ripped off in the emotive manner that they claim to be...

Sticky mess and our tax dollars mixed in there somewhere.

Every insurance company calculates for the risk that they will be defrauded, so you make a point there. But every insurance company also calculates that the law will be available to them when the are defrauded.

The proof here is in the pudding. If SCA had doping concerns, it would have included explicit antidoping provisions in the insurance contract.

But SCA has gotten an enormous mountain of publicity out of this, though.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong up to his old tricks. A bit rich using the term "bullying". But a misstep by the government it appears by sending out privileged documents.

“You need to take responsibility for your own error, and stop making unfounded accusations against other lawyers who actually have professional reputations they have earned and value,” wrote Elliot Peters of the San Francisco firm Keker and Van Nest. “It merely suggests that you like to bully people and abuse your power as a government lawyer by leveling serious accusations without any factual basis.”

That letter came in the wake of an embarrassing misstep by the DOJ, whose lawyers seem to have accidentally shared a trove of sensitive documents with Armstrong’s legal team, and have been fighting to get them back ever since.

It’s unclear exactly what the documents contain — much of the litigation is sealed — but court documents suggest they include memoranda summarizing government witness interviews. Attorneys from both sides of the dispute did not respond to requests for comment.

A month later, Chandler sent Peters a one-page letter claiming that some of the documents labeled US00145830 through US00146076 were “inadvertently produced” and protected by various forms of privilege.

“We request that you immediately refrain from reviewing, copying, or disseminating the privileged documents, and that you return or destroy all copies of those documents in your possession,” Chandler wrote. “We further request that you destroy the portions of any other documents or work product generated that use, refer to, or summarize any of the privileged documents.”

An attorney from Keker and Van Nest responded to the government, claiming that the documents didn’t appear to be privileged. The DOJ then almost immediately filed a motion for a protective order, alarmed that Armstrong’s attorneys had already used one of the documents as an exhibit to support a separate motion.

http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/i-t...rs-doj-wrangle-papers-article-1.1930473#bmb=1

 

[Merckx index]

It’s worth remembering that this is the same federal government that couldn’t get Bonds for anything more than obstruction of justice by evading a question, that caused a temporary media frenzy when they released a document with a typo suggesting a positive test that never happened.

The same federal government that botched the first trial against a slam-dunk doper Clemens when they showed the jury prejudicial evidence the judge had ordered them not to show, then lost the retrial because their star witness was a non-credible slimeball who stored syringes in an old beer can.

LA’s best hope here may not be the legal arguments for and against, but the sheer incompetence government lawyers sometimes display.

 

[MarkvW]

It’s worth remembering that this is the same federal government that couldn’t get Bonds for anything more than obstruction of justice by evading a question, that caused a temporary media frenzy when they released a document with a typo suggesting a positive test that never happened.

The same federal government that botched the first trial against a slam-dunk doper Clemens when they showed the jury prejudicial evidence the judge had ordered them not to show, then lost the retrial because their star witness was a non-credible slimeball who stored syringes in an old beer can.

LA’s best hope here may not be the legal arguments for and against, but the sheer incompetence government lawyers sometimes display.

The feds best shot is at summary judgment. Lance has already admitted in public to the guts of the Feds' case. From the discovery squabble, it does appear that Lance hasn't come up with any evidence that USPS had sufficient knowledge of Lance's doping prior to Floyd's revelations.

The cases you discuss are criminal cases. The very high 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard goes a long way toward explaining the outcomes in the Clemens and Bonds cases. The feds have a much lower standard of proof in the civil case against Lance.

It's also important to remember that all the fed witnesses are locked in by their GJ testimony.

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong up to his old tricks. A bit rich using the term "bullying".
http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/i-t...rs-doj-wrangle-papers-article-1.1930473#bmb=1

Good to see Nate got on the story. Someone was writing about those emails here recently.....

Add in some testy emails from either side and it is clear this is going to be a loooong, hard fight.

Good post Race

 

[Race Radio]

It’s worth remembering that this is the same federal government that couldn’t get Bonds for anything more than obstruction of justice by evading a question, that caused a temporary media frenzy when they released a document with a typo suggesting a positive test that never happened.

The same federal government that botched the first trial against a slam-dunk doper Clemens when they showed the jury prejudicial evidence the judge had ordered them not to show, then lost the retrial because their star witness was a non-credible slimeball who stored syringes in an old beer can.

LA’s best hope here may not be the legal arguments for and against, but the sheer incompetence government lawyers sometimes display.

You make a good point, although those are criminal cases, not civil. Much higher burden of proof.

Much has been said about Holder's actions in the Justice department. Turning it into a settlement factory, instead of a group that fights, and wins, cases. While this generates cash it hurts the DoJ's ability long term. It takes time to develop trial lawyers.

Regardless this evidence thing is much ado about nothing. Likely stuff that was going to be sent at a later date anyway

 

[MarkvW]

Regardless this evidence thing is much ado about nothing. Likely stuff that was going to be sent at a later date anyway

The feds assert that they inadvertently gave up "attorney work product" material. Such material is exempt from discovery. This kind of thing often happens in huge cases where electronic discovery is involved. It's a blunder because it doesn't just give up information, it gives up strategy and planning.

The rules contemplate how lawyers are supposed to handle this situation.

The recipient of inadvertent attorney work product disclosures have a duty to return the material and not use it. (I'm guessing that) Lance's lawyers are arguing that the inadvertently disclosed material (a) was not privileged material; or (b) was privileged material, but they didn't recognize it as such.

No way of evaluating the scope of the feds' blunder. It could be relatively harmless, or it could hurt their case. In any event, it is grossly embarrassing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong up to his old tricks. A bit rich using the term "bullying". But a misstep by the government it appears by sending out privileged documents.

http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/i-t...rs-doj-wrangle-papers-article-1.1930473#bmb=1

It's a misstep, but not terribly uncommon in a case with this much information being exchanged. Lance's attorneys are not supposed to use it once informed, but...